Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere, Volume II

IO Files: US/A/C.1/1412

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Harley A. Notter, Adviser, United States Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly

secret

[New York,] October 17, 1949.

Subject: Soviet Resolution

Participants:	Mr. J. D. L. Hood,1 Australian Delegation
	H.E. Mr. Fernand van Langenhove,2 Belgian Delegation
	The Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Canadian Delegation
	H. E. Mr. Henrik Kauffmann,3 Danish Delegation
	Mr. Maurice Couve de Murville,4 French Delegation
	Mr. Alberto Tarchiani,5 Italian Delegation
	Mr. Foss Shanahan,6 New Zealand Delegation
	Dr. van Heuven Goedhart,7 Netherlands Delegation
	Dr. Arne T. Sunde,8 Norwegian Delegation
	Mr. Sven Grafstrom,9 Swedish Delegation
	H.E.G.P. Jooste,10 South African Delegation
	The Rt. Hon. Hector McNeil, United Kingdom Delegation
	Ambassador Philip C. Jessup, United States Delegation
	Assistant Secretary John D. Hickerson, United States Delegation
	Several Advisors of the United States Delegation

One of the subjects of the discussion of this dinner meeting was the Soviet Resolution. The subject was raised by Ambassador Jessup and the discussion was introduced by Mr. Hickerson.

Mr. Hickerson presented our analysis of the Soviet Resolution, informed the group of the, US/UK joint resolution and the consultations with other states, and read the text of the resolution as so far developed. He specified that the Soviet Resolution was distinguished from its predecessors by its charges directly against the US and the UK governments; the proposed action on atomic energy was a strategem to separate use of atomic energy from safeguarding controls; and the projected proposal for a Five-Power pact was unnecessary because it would duplicate the obligations of all 59 members of the UN under the Charter, was a fraud in setting up a new agreement without fulfilling the obligations of the earlier agreement of the Charter, and aimed at major power domination. He stated that the US and the UK believed that the Soviet Resolution must be voted down definitively. He promised members present would receive a copy of the US/UK resolution, which we had endeavored to make an entirely honest resolution concerning fundamentals of peace in existing circumstances as soon as a final text had been agreed upon between the US and the UK.

In the discussion that followed, Mr. Pearson made a suggestion that the sponsorship should be wider; he suggested a group of five sponsors including the US and the UK, a Latin-American state, an Asiatic state and a European state—France. He doubted the desirability of including the third paragraph on the ground that it turned condemnation back on the Soviets and opened us to the charge of doing what we criticized the Soviets themselves for doing. His discussion of atomic energy was interrupted and left unfinished, but he stated that the second paragraph of the Soviet resolution was general and misleading.

There was firm agreement in the discussion to have a substitute resolution, though Dr. Goedhart initially suggested having no substitute. There was also clear agreement that the substitute should be of a character which the Soviets could not accept.

Ambassador Jooste of South Africa raised a pointed question concerning the meaning of “free access” for UN bodies. He expressed the view that his government fully accepted the projected resolution and would support it to the fullest possible extent, but South Africa desired to know exactly what it was agreeing upon when expressing its approval. It was pointed out by Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hickerson that the UN bodies in question would have had to be approved by the General Assembly by a ⅔ vote, and that thereafter “free access” in the performance of their assigned tasks must be granted to these bodies by all members so far as necessary to these duties. He only alluded to a second point, but he did not raise it in the discussion. (He told Mr. Notter after the main discussion that this concerned the meaning of the words “political liberties”. In view of his evident concern with these two matters, some of the Advisers will lunch with Mr. Jooste on Tuesday¹¹ for the purpose of further discussion.)

Hector McNeil stated that in handling the Soviet Resolution, we must seek to avoid having a vote on the separate phrases in that resolution; he mentioned that otherwise the British would have to vote in favor of some of the phrases.

There was much consideration of the problem of handling Committee I business on Tuesday, especially the Soviet Resolution. There was general desire to avoid discussion in Committee I on that Resolution before the Italian Colonies were disposed of. It was pointed; out that the Soviets would press for discussion of their resolution in Committee I immediately in order to gain the advantages of the so-called International Peace Day rallies that had been held October 2nd, but especially in order to have the Soviet position developed publicly prior to the Security Council elections in the Plenary session on Thursday. This tied up intimately with Vishinsky’s intention to have a 3:30 press conference on Tuesday, which predictably would be devoted to the nomination of Czechoslovakia and probably also to the Soviet resolution. The discussion left much uncertainty whether other items to come before Committee I on Tuesday would consume the time of the meeting or not. Mr. M. Couve de Murville agreed to open up a move in Committee I on Tuesday to postpone further committee meetings until Friday and to commence on that day the discussion of the report of Subcommittee 17 on the Italian Colonies.

H. Notter

1. Member of the Australian Delegation; Minister in Charge of the Mission to the United Nations.
2. Member of the Belgian Delegation; Permanent Belgian Representative at the United Nations.
3. Alternate Member of the Danish Delegation; Danish Ambassador in the United States.
4. Alternate Member of the French Delegation; Director-General, Department of Political Affairs, French Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
5. Italian observer at the United Nations; Italian Ambassador in the United States.
6. Member of the New Zealand Delegation; officer in the New Zealand Ministry for External Affairs.
7. Vice-Chairman of the Netherlands Delegation; Member of the First Chamber of the Netherlands States-General.
8. Member of the Norwegian Delegation; Permanent Norwegian Representative at the United Nations.
9. Alternate Member of the Swedish Delegation; Permanent Swedish Representative at the United Nations.
10. Chairman of the South African Delegation; South African Ambassador in the United States.
11. October 18.